What about this as a special ability for PC's with at least 2D in (A) Acrobatics:

Acrobatic Combat:
For each die the PC has in (A) Acrobatics, he or she can potentially get +1 to any skill roll which also somehow involves acrobatics. For example, if the PC chooses an acrobatic Dodge rather than a standard one, since he or she has (let's say) 4D+1 in (A) Acrobatics, he or she may add +4 to the result of that Dodge roll. This applies to any skill which could conceivably be acrobatic in nature, but only applies when the PC uses acrobatics in conjunction with the skill. Examples include: Brawling, Brawling parry, Melee combat, Melee parry, Dodge, etc._________________The only words of explanation you need for any concept in the entire Star Wars universe are the words Science Fiction and Space Opera.

Last edited by Error on Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:24 am; edited 1 time in total

I just re-read the 2ER&U core rulebook section on Advanced Skills so I could get a refresher on them. According to what I read on page 29, the (A) skill can be used by itself, or it can be added to any of the skills that were prerequisites for it. What it doesn't say is that you can add the (A) skill dice to other things that were not prerequisites for it.

So that brings me to a problem, and that's how to justify using an (A) skill (in this case Acrobatics) to give bonuses to skills that were not its prerequisites. Speaking of which, this is what I'd ask of a character to be able to use (A) Acrobatics:

- 5D in Climbing/Jumping
- 5D in Dodge
- 3D in DEX
- 3D in STR

So, if I were hypothetically following the RAW, I could only add my (A) Acrobatics dice to the two skills on the above list (can't use them on the Attributes, of course...a person with 10D (A) Acrobatics would be rolling 13D STR and that's what's called "breaking the game").

Essentially, this necessitates the institution of a new system for this particular conundrum. What I propose is using the system in the post above this one, but I would need to decide exactly which skills I could use the bonus for beforehand. These are the skills to which I can see applying an (A) Acrobatics bonus, which would include all specializations under it.

What about this as a special ability for PC's with at least 2D in (A) Acrobatics:

Acrobatic Combat:
For each die the PC has in (A) Acrobatics, he or she can potentially get +1 to any skill roll which also somehow involves acrobatics. For example, if the PC chooses an acrobatic Dodge rather than a standard one, since he or she has (let's say) 4D+1 in (A) Acrobatics, he or she may add +4 to the result of that Dodge roll. This applies to any skill which could conceivably be acrobatic in nature, but only applies when the PC uses acrobatics in conjunction with the skill. Examples include: Brawling, Brawling parry, Melee combat, Melee parry, Dodge, etc.

Prob is, then they can always claim they are doing those skills "Accrobaticly" so they can get the bonus.. iMO if it was in play, there should be some sort of requirement to claim it, like having enough space to do so..

Quote:

So, if I were hypothetically following the RAW, I could only add my (A) Acrobatics dice to the two skills on the above list (can't use them on the Attributes, of course...a person with 10D (A) Acrobatics would be rolling 13D STR and that's what's called "breaking the game").

Essentially, this necessitates the institution of a new system for this particular conundrum. What I propose is using the system in the post above this one, but I would need to decide exactly which skills I could use the bonus for beforehand. These are the skills to which I can see applying an (A) Acrobatics bonus, which would include all specializations under it.

Any lower and most every template could start out with the (A) Accrobatics skill.._________________It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.

I just re-read the 2ER&U core rulebook section on Advanced Skills so I could get a refresher on them. According to what I read on page 29, the (A) skill can be used by itself, or it can be added to any of the skills that were prerequisites for it. What it doesn't say is that you can add the (A) skill dice to other things that were not prerequisites for it.

So that brings me to a problem, and that's how to justify using an (A) skill (in this case Acrobatics) to give bonuses to skills that were not its prerequisites. Speaking of which, this is what I'd ask of a character to be able to use (A) Acrobatics:

- 5D in Climbing/Jumping
- 5D in Dodge
- 3D in DEX
- 3D in STR

So, if I were hypothetically following the RAW, I could only add my (A) Acrobatics dice to the two skills on the above list (can't use them on the Attributes, of course...a person with 10D (A) Acrobatics would be rolling 13D STR and that's what's called "breaking the game").

Essentially, this necessitates the institution of a new system for this particular conundrum. What I propose is using the system in the post above this one, but I would need to decide exactly which skills I could use the bonus for beforehand...

Thoughts?

I don't feel it necessitates the institution of a new "system". There are many easy ways to prevent game breaking. First of all, having attribute prerequisites wouldn't mean that you would allow the advanced skill to add to all uses of that attribute. Why would Acrobatics help Strength to resist damage rolls? That just doesn't make sense. Attribute and all other prerequisites just mean you can't have the advanced skill without them. I think it is extremely appropriate for acrobats to be strong and dextrous to a certain degree.

A GM could easily rule that advanced skills can only be raised with a teacher, or least only so much without one. I think it would be extremely unrealistic for a lot of people with a high level of Acrobatics being available to train the PC. And RAW says "Advanced skills demand years of disciplined study to master" so I feel the longer training times are still sometimes too short for advanced skills. And 10D for any advanced skill is pretty absurd outside of NPC droids. (In my game PCs never get higher than 8D in normal skills.) I say if a PC wants to have even 5D in Acrobatics he's pretty much going to have to join a circus with a master acrobat and forgo adventuring for years to get to that point, so the whole purpose of having that much Acrobatics skill would end up being for entertainment purposes only, not to get bonuses in combat and break games.

garhkal wrote:

Prob is, then they can always claim they are doing those skills "Accrobaticly" so they can get the bonus.. iMO if it was in play, there should be some sort of requirement to claim it, like having enough space to do so...

Of course there should be enough space. As far as what skills get bonuses, in what situations, and to what degree, IMO that should always be "as determined by the GM". No need for special rules. Players can say they are doing it acrobatically, but the GM has the final say if they can get the bonus or not.

Any lower and most every template could start out with the (A) Accrobatics skill..

Not every template could start out with Acrobatics if you go by the rule that states skills can only be added to templates with GM permission. And I require all skill dice allocation choices a player makes has to be supported by the PC's background (except the first 1D in Dodge which I can write off to natural ability, luck, whatever). So even if a PC met all the prerequisites, if the player can't justify to my satisfaction why the PC has 1D or 2D in Acrobatics, they can't have it.

I feel the Acrobatics skill rules should apply to NPCs too, not just PCs. Think about mook acrobats that are in a circus. That informs my ideas for attribute and skill prerequisites. I don't think brawling and melee skills should be there at all because circus acrobats wouldn't need combat skills and the acrobatics skill does not only have combat uses. (Dodge is a more general skill and is not just used for combat.) Here are my suggestions:

Really? I just don't see characters with 1D range Perception being good at Acrobatics. I don't think it is unreasonable to have that Perception 2D min for just about any advanced skill._________________*
Site MapForum GuidelinesRegistration & Log-In Help

True, but since 2d is the human ave, and rarely do you see any npc listed who doesn't have that 2d, that means most everyone qualifies._________________It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.

I don't feel it necessitates the institution of a new "system". There are many easy ways to prevent game breaking. First of all, having attribute prerequisites wouldn't mean that you would allow the advanced skill to add to all uses of that attribute. Why would Acrobatics help Strength to resist damage rolls? That just doesn't make sense. Attribute and all other prerequisites just mean you can't have the advanced skill without them. I think it is extremely appropriate for acrobats to be strong and dextrous to a certain degree.

A GM could easily rule that advanced skills can only be raised with a teacher, or least only so much without one. I think it would be extremely unrealistic for a lot of people with a high level of Acrobatics being available to train the PC. And RAW says "Advanced skills demand years of disciplined study to master" so I feel the longer training times are still sometimes too short for advanced skills. And 10D for any advanced skill is pretty absurd outside of NPC droids. (In my game PCs never get higher than 8D in normal skills.) I say if a PC wants to have even 5D in Acrobatics he's pretty much going to have to join a circus with a master acrobat and forgo adventuring for years to get to that point, so the whole purpose of having that much Acrobatics skill would end up being for entertainment purposes only, not to get bonuses in combat and break games.

You bring up some excellent points and I thank you for the response. I think the system as I have it now, adding pips to things that the PC does "acrobatically" at a rate of 1:1 in terms of dice in (A) Acrobatics, is functional and non-game-breaking.

Also, the 10D thing was meant to be a gross example. 10D in (A) Acrobatics, like you said, would be someone who had spent years and years in a traveling circus, or something equivalent...

I place no caps on skills, advanced or otherwise, for my PC's. Why do you stop them at 8D? Because it gets "no fun" after that for anyone but the guy with 13D Blaster? Just curious, because it sounds like a good way to curb powergamers (those who seek the game the system, sometimes in an adversarial way)._________________The only words of explanation you need for any concept in the entire Star Wars universe are the words Science Fiction and Space Opera.

Why do you stop them at 8D? Because it gets "no fun" after that for anyone but the guy with 13D Blaster? Just curious, because it sounds like a good way to curb powergamers (those who seek the game the system, sometimes in an adversarial way).

I've had some DMs who DO make you train Longer when you get to 7-9D, and even More so when you reach 10d+ Sometimes to the point that you spend a YEAR out of things do GET that training._________________It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.

I've had some DMs who DO make you train Longer when you get to 7-9D, and even More so when you reach 10d+ Sometimes to the point that you spend a YEAR out of things do GET that training.

Sounds reasonable.

Error wrote:

Whill wrote:

In my game PCs never get higher than 8D in normal skills.

Why do you stop them at 8D? Because it gets "no fun" after that for anyone but the guy with 13D Blaster? Just curious, because it sounds like a good way to curb powergamers (those who seek the game the system, sometimes in an adversarial way).

I didn't say I stop them. I only said they never get higher than 8D. I emphasize to players how important it is for characters to be well-rounded, so PCs usually get one or two signature skills "topped off" at 8D and then work on other skills. It's practical. PC groups tend to reduce in numbers over time as players have to drop out of campaigns due to job or life changes. And there are occasional times where we play when someone can't make it, so fewer PCs have to fill all the party roles. And sometimes, PCs just get split of from the party or wounded. Overfocused PCs usually end up in more situations where they are insufficiently skilled. It pays to be broad. With Force Points and Character Points, 8D is usually going to be enough.

I always make boldly clear up front that I've got no tolerance for power gaming. I can honestly say I've never had a power gamers for any long term campaigns. I read a lot online where GMs need to have all these defensive-against-player rules in place for these people and it really saddens me there are so many gamers like that out there. I have no interest in playing with these people. Roleplaying should not be adversarial._________________*
Site MapForum GuidelinesRegistration & Log-In Help

I've had some DMs who DO make you train Longer when you get to 7-9D, and even More so when you reach 10d+ Sometimes to the point that you spend a YEAR out of things do GET that training.

Sounds reasonable.

Error wrote:

Whill wrote:

In my game PCs never get higher than 8D in normal skills.

Why do you stop them at 8D? Because it gets "no fun" after that for anyone but the guy with 13D Blaster? Just curious, because it sounds like a good way to curb powergamers (those who seek the game the system, sometimes in an adversarial way).

I didn't say I stop them. I only said they never get higher than 8D. I emphasize to players how important it is for characters to be well-rounded, so PCs usually get one or two signature skills "topped off" at 8D and then work on other skills. It's practical. PC groups tend to reduce in numbers over time as players have to drop out of campaigns due to job or life changes. And there are occasional times where we play when someone can't make it, so fewer PCs have to fill all the party roles. And sometimes, PCs just get split of from the party or wounded. Overfocused PCs usually end up in more situations where they are insufficiently skilled. It pays to be broad. With Force Points and Character Points, 8D is usually going to be enough.

I always make boldly clear up front that I've got no tolerance for power gaming. I can honestly say I've never had a power gamers for any long term campaigns. I read a lot online where GMs need to have all these defensive-against-player rules in place for these people and it really saddens me there are so many gamers like that out there. I have no interest in playing with these people. Roleplaying should not be adversarial.

Ah, thank you for clarifying what you meant. I handle it a different way: "That guy with 13D in Blaster sure seems to get conned a lot...right out of his blaster this time, actually..."

^ I think this is why there are so many skills. There are multiple ways to put PC's with huge stats in three or four areas into situations where they are forced to use their less-developed skills to survive. The ones who lacked the foresight to improve things like Willpower or Climbing/Jumping can be made to pay for it this way.

I too have zero tolerance for powergamers. As soon as I see someone crunching numbers, they're out on their @$$. That's not what roleplaying should be. I want the PC's to succeed as much as they do. Sometimes more!

It's not a mystery, though, why powergamers/adversarial gamers exist. Do you think someone who has spent most of his or her life being downtrodden for being a gamer/nerdy/different (you know the ones I'm talking about) is going to turn out reasonable and balanced? Not likely. Eventually, everyone is their enemy, and they feel most at home among gamers because that's where a lot of such neckbeards show up and the judgment is actually WAY less. And there are people out there who have had it SO bad that they CREATE situations expressly to prove themselves right about that actual situation. These are the players I wish I could help become less adversarial. But once the neural wiring is finished, so to speak, there's scant little you can do about a person's mien as a mere GM, except specifically exclude them. (Always tell them WHY they're being excluded, too, or more rejection just compounds the original problem.)_________________The only words of explanation you need for any concept in the entire Star Wars universe are the words Science Fiction and Space Opera.

It's not a mystery, though, why powergamers/adversarial gamers exist. Do you think someone who has spent most of his or her life being downtrodden for being a gamer/nerdy/different (you know the ones I'm talking about) is going to turn out reasonable and balanced? Not likely. Eventually, everyone is their enemy, and they feel most at home among gamers because that's where a lot of such neckbeards show up and the judgment is actually WAY less. And there are people out there who have had it SO bad that they CREATE situations expressly to prove themselves right about that actual situation. These are the players I wish I could help become less adversarial. But once the neural wiring is finished, so to speak, there's scant little you can do about a person's mien as a mere GM, except specifically exclude them. (Always tell them WHY they're being excluded, too, or more rejection just compounds the original problem.)

So true error. There are those out there, who seem to be this way cause of experiences, and once they are set in it, it is hard t pull them out._________________It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.

It's not a mystery, though, why powergamers/adversarial gamers exist. Do you think someone who has spent most of his or her life being downtrodden for being a gamer/nerdy/different (you know the ones I'm talking about) is going to turn out reasonable and balanced? Not likely. Eventually, everyone is their enemy, and they feel most at home among gamers because that's where a lot of such neckbeards show up and the judgment is actually WAY less. And there are people out there who have had it SO bad that they CREATE situations expressly to prove themselves right about that actual situation. These are the players I wish I could help become less adversarial. But once the neural wiring is finished, so to speak, there's scant little you can do about a person's mien as a mere GM, except specifically exclude them. (Always tell them WHY they're being excluded, too, or more rejection just compounds the original problem.)

So true error. There are those out there, who seem to be this way cause of experiences, and once they are set in it, it is hard t pull them out.

I find that my main responsibility as a GM is to create a fun experience for my players, myself, and anyone who happens to overhear or walk by a session-in-progress.

What I mean is that it's really outside my ken to provide psychological help to someone who really needs it. I am in charge of me and he is in charge of he. The best thing one can do is hope (and pray, if you're into that) that that person eventually finds the same amount of happiness that you wish for yourself.

The unfortunate fact though is that kids are mean, REALLY mean, and anyone even relatively vulnerable or sensitive can be seriously damaged by that, and for good. And those people tend to become gamers for some reason. All my WoW friends are fat as hogs, do not leave their rooms much, and talk sh*t daylong on Ventrilo or equivalent and about other human beings. It's sad, at least for me._________________The only words of explanation you need for any concept in the entire Star Wars universe are the words Science Fiction and Space Opera.